One in five cars stopped near Bromyard had invalid MoTs - police

One in five cars stopped near Bromyard had invalid MoTs - police

One in five cars stopped near Bromyard had invalid MoTs - police

First published in News

ONE in five vehicles stopped near Bromyard by police did not have a valid MoT certificate, officers said this week.

Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs.

Inspector Martin Taylor, who is responsible for policing in Bromyard says: “As the vehicles were stopped throughout the course of the day, officers noticed a worrying trend emerging.

“We carried out these stop checks along with officials from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, who commented that the MOT testing stations they examine all report they aren’t as busy as last year, which seems to imply that people aren’t getting their cars tested.

“We understand that money is tight for many people at the moment, but not renewing your MOT has serious consequences. We cannot stress enough how important it is that people have a current MOT on their vehicles."

The vehicles stopped were also inspected by officials from HM Revenue and Customs and DVLA, and several were seized for no insurance, and nine were deemed unroadworthy.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:05pm Fri 19 Apr 13

bmoc55 says...

So what happened to the drivers without valid MOTs?
So what happened to the drivers without valid MOTs? bmoc55
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Hillbilly1 says...

Well they should be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988. You can't get points on your licence for this offence, but you can get a fine up to £1000, but they won't. Will they be prosecuted? who knows?
Well they should be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act 1988. You can't get points on your licence for this offence, but you can get a fine up to £1000, but they won't. Will they be prosecuted? who knows? Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Fri 19 Apr 13

Guy66 says...

I thought the Police could confiscate their cars and crush them - or is it no insurance? But saying that - not having a valid MOT would invalidate the insurance as well would it not?
I thought the Police could confiscate their cars and crush them - or is it no insurance? But saying that - not having a valid MOT would invalidate the insurance as well would it not? Guy66
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Fri 19 Apr 13

PrivateSi says...

Cat'n'Mouse with safety tossed, burning, out the window... The worst thing is, the worse the condition of the car, the worse the MOT fix-up bill (or right-off) will be. - and likelyhood of catastrophic failure if ignored. But then many MOTs are a rip-off via exaggerated problems... and public transport is not exactly good value.

Any solutions? No, of course not until the economy picks up... just hope for the best... You could fine them and/or take their vehicle but how COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, in the long run, would this policy be (if strictly implemented - 20% is a high proportion of drivers... My guess is the police were HIGHLY SELECTIVE in the vehicles they stopped (ie. dodgier looking vehicles) - probably nearer 5% is so.

We'll just have to hope no accidents happen because of this. It's more likely a car will conk out but BAD BRAKES KILL!
Cat'n'Mouse with safety tossed, burning, out the window... The worst thing is, the worse the condition of the car, the worse the MOT fix-up bill (or right-off) will be. - and likelyhood of catastrophic failure if ignored. But then many MOTs are a rip-off via exaggerated problems... and public transport is not exactly good value. Any solutions? No, of course not until the economy picks up... just hope for the best... You could fine them and/or take their vehicle but how COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, in the long run, would this policy be (if strictly implemented - 20% is a high proportion of drivers... My guess is the police were HIGHLY SELECTIVE in the vehicles they stopped (ie. dodgier looking vehicles) - probably nearer 5% is so. We'll just have to hope no accidents happen because of this. It's more likely a car will conk out but BAD BRAKES KILL! PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Fri 19 Apr 13

CJH says...

PrivateSi wrote:
Cat'n'Mouse with safety tossed, burning, out the window... The worst thing is, the worse the condition of the car, the worse the MOT fix-up bill (or right-off) will be. - and likelyhood of catastrophic failure if ignored. But then many MOTs are a rip-off via exaggerated problems... and public transport is not exactly good value.

Any solutions? No, of course not until the economy picks up... just hope for the best... You could fine them and/or take their vehicle but how COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, in the long run, would this policy be (if strictly implemented - 20% is a high proportion of drivers... My guess is the police were HIGHLY SELECTIVE in the vehicles they stopped (ie. dodgier looking vehicles) - probably nearer 5% is so.

We'll just have to hope no accidents happen because of this. It's more likely a car will conk out but BAD BRAKES KILL!
"probably nearer 5%" How did you reach this figure?
[quote][p][bold]PrivateSi[/bold] wrote: Cat'n'Mouse with safety tossed, burning, out the window... The worst thing is, the worse the condition of the car, the worse the MOT fix-up bill (or right-off) will be. - and likelyhood of catastrophic failure if ignored. But then many MOTs are a rip-off via exaggerated problems... and public transport is not exactly good value. Any solutions? No, of course not until the economy picks up... just hope for the best... You could fine them and/or take their vehicle but how COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, in the long run, would this policy be (if strictly implemented - 20% is a high proportion of drivers... My guess is the police were HIGHLY SELECTIVE in the vehicles they stopped (ie. dodgier looking vehicles) - probably nearer 5% is so. We'll just have to hope no accidents happen because of this. It's more likely a car will conk out but BAD BRAKES KILL![/p][/quote]"probably nearer 5%" How did you reach this figure? CJH
  • Score: 0

12:01am Sat 20 Apr 13

New Kid on the Block says...

To quote paragraph 2 of the article
"Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. "

The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors.
Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise.
To quote paragraph 2 of the article "Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. " The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors. Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 0

12:12am Sat 20 Apr 13

CJH says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
To quote paragraph 2 of the article
"Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. "

The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors.
Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise.
It doesn't say they were scrap metal dealers. It says vehicles, and it was aimed at disrupting the scrap metal trade. So could have been anything. 60 scrap metal dealers in one day? Unlikely.
.
But what this demonstrates yet again is that the WN does not do the basic checks when reporting. Headlines quite often bear little relation to the actual story. Stories are not followed up, questions which seem obvious are not asked. What is going on? Surely someone at WN Towers should have read this and asked the questions we're asking?
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: To quote paragraph 2 of the article "Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. " The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors. Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise.[/p][/quote]It doesn't say they were scrap metal dealers. It says vehicles, and it was aimed at disrupting the scrap metal trade. So could have been anything. 60 scrap metal dealers in one day? Unlikely. . But what this demonstrates yet again is that the WN does not do the basic checks when reporting. Headlines quite often bear little relation to the actual story. Stories are not followed up, questions which seem obvious are not asked. What is going on? Surely someone at WN Towers should have read this and asked the questions we're asking? CJH
  • Score: 0

12:57am Sat 20 Apr 13

Saturn V says...

It's the dailymailification. Maybe Philpott has been promoted.
It's the dailymailification. Maybe Philpott has been promoted. Saturn V
  • Score: 0

8:18am Sat 20 Apr 13

green49 says...

NO MOT? === NO Insurance cover, maybe no tax, maybe a Disqualified Driver should equal === NO Vechicle, Crush it.
End of any argument.
NO MOT? === NO Insurance cover, maybe no tax, maybe a Disqualified Driver should equal === NO Vechicle, Crush it. End of any argument. green49
  • Score: 0

9:07am Sat 20 Apr 13

Maggie Would says...

green49 wrote:
NO MOT? === NO Insurance cover, maybe no tax, maybe a Disqualified Driver should equal === NO Vechicle, Crush it.
End of any argument.
Unfortunately (or fortunately for anyone that is unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident with a car with no MoT) the lack of an MoT certificate does not invalidate insurance. The insurers would take it into account when assessing a claim though.
.
Cars with no MoT are not confiscated and crushed. Cars with no insurance can be.
[quote][p][bold]green49[/bold] wrote: NO MOT? === NO Insurance cover, maybe no tax, maybe a Disqualified Driver should equal === NO Vechicle, Crush it. End of any argument.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately (or fortunately for anyone that is unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident with a car with no MoT) the lack of an MoT certificate does not invalidate insurance. The insurers would take it into account when assessing a claim though. . Cars with no MoT are not confiscated and crushed. Cars with no insurance can be. Maggie Would
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Sat 20 Apr 13

Hillbilly1 says...

Scary statistic - over 20% of 3 year old cars fail their first MOT!
Scary statistic - over 20% of 3 year old cars fail their first MOT! Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Sat 20 Apr 13

Jabbadad says...

I must admit that when the MOT was first introduced I argued against it, but having been shown by a mechanic of many years, the condition that some cars were in and being used to carry whole families in such dangerous vehicles made me a firm supporter of the MOT.
I also support that NO MOT should include crushing, since the vehicle is possibly unroadworthy and so dangerous.
I also support comments that any driver who has caused the loss of life by their reckless driving and a fatal accident should never drive again.
I must admit that when the MOT was first introduced I argued against it, but having been shown by a mechanic of many years, the condition that some cars were in and being used to carry whole families in such dangerous vehicles made me a firm supporter of the MOT. I also support that NO MOT should include crushing, since the vehicle is possibly unroadworthy and so dangerous. I also support comments that any driver who has caused the loss of life by their reckless driving and a fatal accident should never drive again. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Sat 20 Apr 13

New Kid on the Block says...

CJH wrote:
New Kid on the Block wrote:
To quote paragraph 2 of the article
"Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. "

The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors.
Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise.
It doesn't say they were scrap metal dealers. It says vehicles, and it was aimed at disrupting the scrap metal trade. So could have been anything. 60 scrap metal dealers in one day? Unlikely.
.
But what this demonstrates yet again is that the WN does not do the basic checks when reporting. Headlines quite often bear little relation to the actual story. Stories are not followed up, questions which seem obvious are not asked. What is going on? Surely someone at WN Towers should have read this and asked the questions we're asking?
If the vehicles were stopped as part of an initiative concerned with disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade then surely they must have been connected to that trade. They may not have been the wagons that we so often see cruising around but I still stand by my assumption about whose vehicles they are likely to have been.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: To quote paragraph 2 of the article "Police stopped 60 vehicles near the town on Thursday, April 11, as part of an initiative aimed at disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade. And 12 of them were found to have expired MOTs. " The vehicles stopped were not Cars as stated in the headline. They were scrap metal collectors. Those lovely people often suspected of taking anything made of metal that isn't firmly bolted down seem to be driving illegal vehicles. What a surprise.[/p][/quote]It doesn't say they were scrap metal dealers. It says vehicles, and it was aimed at disrupting the scrap metal trade. So could have been anything. 60 scrap metal dealers in one day? Unlikely. . But what this demonstrates yet again is that the WN does not do the basic checks when reporting. Headlines quite often bear little relation to the actual story. Stories are not followed up, questions which seem obvious are not asked. What is going on? Surely someone at WN Towers should have read this and asked the questions we're asking?[/p][/quote]If the vehicles were stopped as part of an initiative concerned with disrupting the illegal scrap metal trade then surely they must have been connected to that trade. They may not have been the wagons that we so often see cruising around but I still stand by my assumption about whose vehicles they are likely to have been. New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Sat 20 Apr 13

PrivateSi says...

@CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful...

I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...
@CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful... I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)... PrivateSi
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Sat 20 Apr 13

CJH says...

PrivateSi wrote:
@CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful...

I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...
So no actual facts then.
[quote][p][bold]PrivateSi[/bold] wrote: @CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful... I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...[/p][/quote]So no actual facts then. CJH
  • Score: 0

8:44am Sun 21 Apr 13

BrownSauce says...

CJH wrote:
PrivateSi wrote:
@CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful...

I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...
So no actual facts then.
No facts, so an intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PrivateSi[/bold] wrote: @CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful... I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...[/p][/quote]So no actual facts then.[/p][/quote]No facts, so an intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance. BrownSauce
  • Score: 0

9:39am Sun 21 Apr 13

DarrenM says...

Unless they were forgerys I'm sure they were perfectly valid, just expired!
Unless they were forgerys I'm sure they were perfectly valid, just expired! DarrenM
  • Score: 0

10:28am Sun 21 Apr 13

CJH says...

BrownSauce wrote:
CJH wrote:
PrivateSi wrote:
@CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful...

I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...
So no actual facts then.
No facts, so an intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance.
"intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance" That's like saying 'I assumed you'd locked the front door' after you'd been burgled. I would say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, you miss the point. If this was a properly written article we would not have to speculate at all. All the information would be there, and there would be facts, and a conclusion.
[quote][p][bold]BrownSauce[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PrivateSi[/bold] wrote: @CJH - How did I 'arrive' at 'probably nearer 5%' of the population?... I quartered 20%!! About as accurate as the (shallow) stats in this article... A tabular 'breakdown' (that the police no doubt have...) would have been more useful... I !PRESUMED! the police were going after dodgier LOOKING vehicles (in a certain part of town...) - could be anywhere from 0.1% to 20% of the entire Worcester population, going by this article... and yes, 60 scrap metal dealers & stealers in Worcester is not feasible (nearer a QUARTER! - probably an 1/8th)...[/p][/quote]So no actual facts then.[/p][/quote]No facts, so an intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance.[/p][/quote]"intelligent assumption is better than total ignorance" That's like saying 'I assumed you'd locked the front door' after you'd been burgled. I would say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, you miss the point. If this was a properly written article we would not have to speculate at all. All the information would be there, and there would be facts, and a conclusion. CJH
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Sun 21 Apr 13

New Kid on the Block says...

DarrenM wrote:
Unless they were forgerys I'm sure they were perfectly valid, just expired!
How can they be valid if they have expired?
[quote][p][bold]DarrenM[/bold] wrote: Unless they were forgerys I'm sure they were perfectly valid, just expired![/p][/quote]How can they be valid if they have expired? New Kid on the Block
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 23 Apr 13

MJI says...

No MOT has no effect on claims to the other person.
.
Also it does not mean that the car is dangerous. And conversly an MOT does not mean the car is safe, only that it passed the MOT on the date on the certificate.
.
Older cars could struggle with emmisions, were they dangerous, no, I have had an MOT tester pass a car when emmisions at idle were not good, I think they just revved it until it was clean then did it that way, the car was safe, good brakes, rust replaced, good steering and lights.
.
You can fail for not having a BSI mark (AFAIR) on your numberplate.
.
Crushing them - no, if they are dangerous impound them until they have a transporter, if not give them a week to get an MOT.
.
Do you get MOT reminders? No. Sometimes people forget, so car crushing - just no.
.
No MOT has no effect on claims to the other person. . Also it does not mean that the car is dangerous. And conversly an MOT does not mean the car is safe, only that it passed the MOT on the date on the certificate. . Older cars could struggle with emmisions, were they dangerous, no, I have had an MOT tester pass a car when emmisions at idle were not good, I think they just revved it until it was clean then did it that way, the car was safe, good brakes, rust replaced, good steering and lights. . You can fail for not having a BSI mark (AFAIR) on your numberplate. . Crushing them - no, if they are dangerous impound them until they have a transporter, if not give them a week to get an MOT. . Do you get MOT reminders? No. Sometimes people forget, so car crushing - just no. . MJI
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree